MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Taranaki Daily News, 14 July 1922, Page 2

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

. NEW PLYMOUTH SITTING. .• " ! "‘7 A siting of the New Plymouth Magistrate’s Court was held yesterday before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. ASSAULT AND WILFUL DAMAGE. John O’Grady was charged that on July 10 he asaulted a woman and wilfully damaged a plate, valued at Is. In pleading guilty to both charges, O'Grady said he did not remember the occurrence.

Senior-Sergt. McCrorie, vjo conducted the ease for the police, said defendant went into this lady’s backyard about 2 o’clock last Monday afternoon and asked for work. When told that he could not be given work the man asked for food, which was given him. He then followed the lady into the Louse, and asked for money, but the lady said she had none. He then smashed the plate and assaulted her. O’Grady at the time was under the. influence of liquor. He had been convicted of assault previously in 1920.

Mr. Bennett, who appeared on behalf of accused, admitted the correctness of the polic/ statement, but, as the man had said, he did not. remember the incident. The man's action was undoubtedly attributable to over-indul-gence in liquor, coupled with a certain artiount of mental deficiency, for which reason he had been rejected for service during the war. He had taken out prohibition orders against himself, but bad failed to renew the last one. When sober O’Gady was an industrious man, and he and his brother “Mick” main- ! tained their parents, who were respecI table people. On the morning the asI sault took place O’Grady set out for the wharf to get work, his mother giving him 5s 8d for tram fares, lunch, etc. On the way there defendant met a man who had a bottle of whiskey, and O’Grady’s money soon disappeared. When sober, said counsel, the last thing tliat would enter the man’s mind would be to assault anyone, as had happened when he was under the influence of drink. The man’s parents would see that another prohibition order was I taken out against him. and exercise I* strict supervision over him to see that such a hapening did not occur again, i Tiw previous assault was really a techone under circumstances which did

not make the case appear serious. On that evasion O’Grady was convicted and discharged. The Magistrate said that the man had done his best to increase his deficiency. He should not be allowed to molest people. In these days of unemployment there would be a number of requests upon householders to supply meals, and if this kind of thing happened it could be seen how deserving cases would be affected. The Magistrate hoped accused understood that he could be sent to gaol without the option of a fine.

On being asked if he would take out a prohibition order against himself, O'Grady refused, hereupon the Magistrate said that O’Grady would not be released till he took an order out. and the case was allowed to stand down for a few minutes.

When O’Grady appeared again in the dock the question was again put to him. He replied: “I’ll take no prohibtiem order out against myself; I’d sooner do time.” Tie explained that he was not addicted to drink, and the prohibition orders previously had been taken out against, him by his parents without his consent. “T tell you straight—T’ll do time.*’ he reiterated. The Magistrate said he had a good opportunity of doing so. On the charge of wilfullv damaging the plate O’Grady was fined 10s and ordered to pay the value (Is) of the article. “The charge of assault is more serious.” said the Magistrate. Accused would be fined £5 and ordered to pay the expense of procuring four witnesses at the rate nf 5s each, in default fourteen days' imprisonment. An application for time in which to pay was declined by the Magistrate, who said O'Grady could pay or go to gaol.

•‘WHEN EXCITEMENT RAN HIGH.” Three charges of assault and a charge of being on licensed premises after hours were preferred against Frank Conway, who pleaded guilty to all the charges. Outlining the facts of the case, Senior-Sergt. McCrorie said on July 1 Conway went into the Imperial Hotel after closing hours, and asked the barman to give him a drink. His request was refused. At that moment the licensee came in and Conway repeated the request, but was again refused, “as the police might come in." He struck the barman and al§o hit the licensee on the face. The later, in leaving tue room, hit his head rather seriously on the door. Conway, who was at the time under the influence of liquor, then rushed outside, hitting a man who was near the door as ho rushed out. Mr. Freeman, who represented Conway. admitted the faets, explaining that the man lost his head when under the influence of liquor. The man had a cold coming on and went into the hotel for the purpose of procuring whiskey. The occurrence took place on the evening following a footbail match, when excitement was running high and drink was flowing rather freely. It was really the case of a drunken man lashing out. He was a respectable member of the community when sober, and was not addicted to drink. He was a married man. Two years ago. it. was admitted, accused had been convicted of assault, that case being also due to drink. Cotiway. on being asked if he would take out a prohibition order against himself, refused to agree, claiming he was not addicted to drink. Conway was fined ,£’•? on each of the assault charges anil fined £1 (costs 7s) on the charge of being on. licensed premises after hours. Inflicting the I fines the Magistrate said he would have considered whether any penalty were necessary at all if Conway had consented to aprohibition order. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. Carroll Henshaw. butcher. Devon Street. New Plymouth, claimed £l2 12s 4d from David Marshall, butcher. Westown. being balance of money allegedly due on amounts paid out in buying stock and in other incidental expenses, including services rendered, at I he request of defendant, who entered a counter-claim for £l6 10s for the use of his sausage machine and other utensils and materials for making small goods in connection with plaintiff's business. Both the claim and counter-

claim were taken together. Mr. R. H. Quilliam appeared for Henshaw and Mr. R. Brokenshire for Marshall. Carroll Henshaw saad he sold a section to Marshall at Wostown and advised him in the establishment of the business. Witness bought his stock for him, as Marshall said he was a stranger in the district and did not know too much about buying. This took place between March 4 and May 4, They were mostly small bullocks that he bought for Marshall, these being bought in witness’ name, who arranged also for droving and grazing, paying for this himself and being later brought to witness’ property jn town. The stock was also killed in witness’ name at the abattoirs and separated after, witness paying abattoirs’ fees. He paid cash for all stock, rendering an account to Marshall about every week or fortnight, when Marshall usually settled. An ordinary fortnight’s operations might amount from £lOO to £l4O. No interest waft charged on the money put out nor was any charge made for witness’s trouble in buying. During the period of this joint arrangement the charges for droving amounted to about £3O, Marshall being charged £8 as his proportion. Grazing for 10 weeks was charged against Marshall at £5, although the paddock was rented for 30s a week, Marshall’s stock having about half the use of the paddock. Dealing with the counter-claim, witness said Marshall invited him to use Marshall’s sausage machine as some return for what witness had done for Marshall. No charge was mentioned. Marshall did not supply the bread for witness’ sausages. The machine would be used 20 minutes a day for five days a week. Three witnesses were called in support of plaintiff’s case. ) Defendant and S. G. Lowe, who was employed by Marshall during the period in question, gave evidence in which a different complexion was put upon the arrangements entered into by the parties. The Magistrate commented on the fact that no agreement in writing had been made. Altogether the arrangement was very loose and most unbusinesslike. The case was an awkward one, one side declaring one thing and the other swearing another. The Magistrate gave judgment foi* Henshaw on his claim for £9 12s 4d (costs 16s), and on the counter-claim gave judgment for Marshall for £9 (costs £2 Ils).

BY-LAW BREACHES. On the information of the Taranaki County Council (Mr. H. Y. McGahey) John Black, for engaging in heavy traffic on the Main South Road with a vehicle mot duly licensed, Sva-s fined £l2 (costs 17s 6d). Leonard Aaron Marsh, for allowing seven horses to.be at large\on the Egrnont Road, was fined £1 (costs 19s Cd). On the information of the Wilfred Mace was charged with leaving a motor car standing in Devon Street unattended for a longer period than five minutes, and was fined £1 (costs ,7s). CIVIL CASES. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default in the following cases: Francis P. Shodroski v. John Wolfe, £3O (costs £4 7s 6d); City Meat Store v. A. Potter, £4 17s (costs £1 3s); Purser’s, Ltd. v. John Davidson, £24 19s 4d (costs £2 Ils). OTHER CASES. The case of Theresa Hoffmann v. Louis E. Hoffmann was adjourned for a week, it being intimated that arrangements for a separation order would be made. The case of Winiki v. Winiki, which had been frequently before the Court, was again called, but as no appearance was made by either parties the case was struck out. Counsel for Mrs. Winiki said he thought it a safe assumption that the parties had left for Tahiti, as had been intimated at last sitting.